I'm pointing to (suspected) underlying "bedrock disagreements" as explanation for why I'm not inclined to invest more time into this discussion. Obviously I haven't *in this discussion* explained all of my views, why I'm unconvinced by your responses and objections, and everything else that I think is wrong with what you've written. That would take a lot of time, and I'm skeptical that it would achieve anything.
My arguments are intended for receptive audiences: the film reel case, for example, might help some to see things more as I do (even when they previously hadn't thought so). But if it doesn't work for you, then it's not for you. Premises may always be rejected; no argument can persuade everyone.
Again, you're under the misapprehension that *what you've read here* is the full extent of my thoughts on the topic. It isn't. Your objections aren't new to me, and I'm under no obligation to go through the motions of a tedious discussion with you just because you (seemingly) want it. Your assumption that this makes me a "fanatic", or indeed that there's *anything* "dishonest" about this, is ludicrous.
I'm going to give you a temporary ban so you can cool off and reflect. Please don't comment on my blog again until you understand (i) that you're not *entitled* to my time, and (ii) that you can't see inside my head, and so you actually have no idea what I've already considered at length. If you repeat these mistakes again in future, the ban will be made permanent.
I'm pointing to (suspected) underlying "bedrock disagreements" as explanation for why I'm not inclined to invest more time into this discussion. Obviously I haven't *in this discussion* explained all of my views, why I'm unconvinced by your responses and objections, and everything else that I think is wrong with what you've written. That would take a lot of time, and I'm skeptical that it would achieve anything.
My arguments are intended for receptive audiences: the film reel case, for example, might help some to see things more as I do (even when they previously hadn't thought so). But if it doesn't work for you, then it's not for you. Premises may always be rejected; no argument can persuade everyone.
Again, you're under the misapprehension that *what you've read here* is the full extent of my thoughts on the topic. It isn't. Your objections aren't new to me, and I'm under no obligation to go through the motions of a tedious discussion with you just because you (seemingly) want it. Your assumption that this makes me a "fanatic", or indeed that there's *anything* "dishonest" about this, is ludicrous.
I'm going to give you a temporary ban so you can cool off and reflect. Please don't comment on my blog again until you understand (i) that you're not *entitled* to my time, and (ii) that you can't see inside my head, and so you actually have no idea what I've already considered at length. If you repeat these mistakes again in future, the ban will be made permanent.